Letters to the Editor — Jan. 25, 3013

“I’m an advocate of taking a safety course, and I’ll even admit that I’ve yet to do that, though it’s been something I’ve wanted to do for some time.”

I’d feel a hell of a lot better if Andrea and the hundreds like her walking around with loaded firearms in public took that course before the fact! How about you? Loving a man is one thing. Shooting him by mistake is quite another.

Rick Littlefield

Barrington

To the editor: Hypocrisy by any other name (insincerity, pretense, duplicity, double standard) is still hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it is practiced daily by the current Republican right and not always recognized. Their propensity to consistently say one thing while doing something contradictory, is specious, egregious and calculated.

How else can we reconcile the gross contradictions between what the right wingers claim to believe and their purposeful actions and intents? This dichotomy applies to their big picture philosophy and to the most basic of government roles and activities.

Philosophically, if one believes that the government should stay out of a citizen’s life why is it ok for the government to legislate whom a person loves and marries? If any regulations on gun ownership infringe on a person’s constitutional right why are new regulations on the voting process not viewed the same? If the national deficit is a serious problem how can Republicans propose a budget that does not address military spending (20% of the total) and actually proposes an increase while also further reducing taxes? A proposal that increases spending and reduces revenue as a way to help reduce our deficit, is false fiscal policy, insincere, duplicitous and two-faced.

Practically, it is ok to repeatedly and immediately pay, with taxpayer money, to rebuild homes in the mid-western flood plains and along hurricane alley. But for 179 Republican legislators the same reasoning doesn’t apply to relief for the victims of hurricane Sandy, a once in a lifetime storm.

For a group that is pro-life and the self-anointed “guardians of the family” how can they also be pro-war (attack Iran, intervene in Syria, stay in Iraq), pro death penalty and against funding the social safety net and public education?

If your economic policy is based on “free market forces” why is it necessary to subsidize highly profitable oil and sugar companies or allow NASCAR to use a depreciation schedule not available to the average business? How is it that this kind of corporate welfare is good but financial support and food stamps for the unemployed is bad?

The right would cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid to save money, but fights to prevent both from negotiating with drug companies to reduce prescription costs. The Veterans Affairs does this now and saves millions of dollars.

The right decries being criticized for waging “a war on women” but opposes the violence against women legislation and continuously attempts to deny funds to Planned Parenthood and limit access to contraception while constantly excusing the wage disparity between men and women.

The right’s ultimate betrayal is their support of the NRA in preventing individuals on the Terrorist Watch List from being added to the background check database. You cannot be the “tough on crime party” and ignore over 1,200 gun purchases by individuals on the watch list.

This level of hypocrisy can only exist when the public does not pay attention and react to the difference between words spoken and actions taken or proposed. As an educated electorate it is our personal responsibility to make the effort to recognize these differences and to hold the hypocrites responsible.

Dave Potter

North Hampton

To the editor: Just read this morning that a 5-year-old Pennsylvania kindergartner was suspended for a bubble gun remark.

Let’s get something straight. This 5-year-old child was not the inventor, manufacturer, store buyer or the purchaser.

Muriel M. Lucas

Gainesville, Ga.

Formerly of Durham

To the editor: In the February-March issue of the National Wildlife Magazine, there is an article about “ LIFE ON THE EDGE” by Steven Kazbuski.

In 2007 he had to travel in a motorboat hundreds of miles up and down the Arctic coast to find a Polar Bear to photograph on the outer reaches of Camden Bay off the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — the only place polar bears den in the U.S.

Oil companies want to drill this summer in the Camden Bay area! Every citizen in our country should stand up and forbid any drilling anywhere in the Arctic Ocean!

Please write, call, or email your Senators and Representatives in Washington to absolutely forbid any drilling in the Arctic!

Loss of sea ice due to climate change is forcing bears to swim across huge expanses of open water — many drown! In 2011, a collared female swam 426 miles in 9 days with her young cub, losing 22% of her body weight in search for ice. The cub died!

Continued loss of ice from a warming climate and potential oil development in Arctic Waters and along the coast could (and would) be disastrous for Polar Bears! The National Wildlife Federation has published several reports on Climate Change.

To find out how you can help, go to www.org/global warming.

Patricia Newhall

Barrington

To the editor: I support the residents of Cocheco Park Apartments in their opposition to the location of the proposed parking garage/police station. I also question the thought process that was used to select that area for the project. There are, in my opinion, at least two other locations that are more suitable for a parking garage. One of those locations is the mostly unused parking lot at the train station. Another is the area by the river which is bordered by Main St., Washington St., and Young St. (the area where Smiley’s used to sit). That is the area I think is best: one block off Downtown, near the Children’s Museum and Henry Law Park. It’s a large area and could easily accommodate a parking garage.

Robert Campbell

Dover

To the editor: Gun control is the issue of the day. Everyone has an opinion on how to institute gun control. I firmly believe that we are directed by our founding fathers to bear arms to protect our homes and to produce food for our tables. If some misguided soul were to take guns away from the people that person would be in direct conflict with our constitution, therefore operating outside the Law. C To take our guns away without a constitutional amendment should make that person subject to a recall from the elected position they hold no matter what elected position they hold, Mr. President.

I have seen no evidence of enough support to even propose a constitutional amendment to. I have seen several instances of people trying to make the ownership of guns a problem for all of us, but not enough to change our constitution. Yes, as I have said before it is tragic that some disturbed people have gotten a gun and perpetrated violence on innocent children and others. However, no one has tried to find and correct the root cause of the problem. The root cause is not the ability to acquire a gun but that there are problems in the minds of the perpetrators that should have been detected and corrected. If Congress and the executive branch would spend the time to find the actual root cause of these horrific events maybe, just maybe the next time we could prevent the horror not just blame some object. Protect our constitutional rights, stand up to creeping Liberalism and support true Americans.